I've heard many fans complain about this movie's special effects, and even Shatner himself has been critical of them. So when I popped the movie in this time around, in addition to sitting back and enjoying one of my personal favorite Trek films, I tried to pay attention to see what the detractors are talking about, in terms of the effects. And I didn't really see it--though admittedly my standards in this area are not high. Some of the ships' motions are a bit choppy in scenes, and there are a few too many scenes with "parked" ships where they should be in an orbital motion, or something, but this movie is neither the first nor the last instance of these kinds of problems in Trek's visuals. The great barrier looks cheesy, but I'm not sure how you'd show that concept much differently. It's no worse than the weird rock nebula in Beyond that no one seems to be complaining about. And I love the look of the blue planet behind the barrier, both from orbit and on the surface. I certainly am not seeing any effects problems so egregious to count as major factors for disliking the movie.
The one I'm most remembering as problematic off the top of my head is when the E shoots the photon torpedo at Sha Ka Ree. If I recall correctly both the visual and audio effects for that were horrible. The BoP shooting at "God" wasn't particularly impressive either.
Neither of those bothered me, though again, my standards aren't high. There was a flashing light and an explosion. I wasn't looking for anything more in either case.
Well, my real question (and I don't mean this as a rhetorical challenge but a legitimate question) is what else can you show when an energy weapon is shot at something?
I would say the photon torpedo effects in any of the other TOS films are better than what's shown here.
The effects were never that jarring to me, apart from the stop-motion BOP disruptors. Of course ILM weren't that impressed when they got the Enterprise effects model back and found that parts of the mounting arm had been shorn off and the underside of the saucer sprayed plain white, requiring repairs and a major repaint.
It was the 80s. Some films had great effects, some less so. ST:V merged with the rest of them and I wasn't really aware of conspicuous problems until they were flagged to me much later. Except maybe the phaser fire in the lamentable landing party scene. That was notably weak.
I accept you may be right, but since I don't see it, tell me what I'm missing. What do we see or hear in the other films that makes those torpedo effects any better? I'll grant Shatner this, he's objective and specific about where and why he feels the effects are lacking. Personally, I love The Final Frontier. I know it's not a perfect show, but I've never gotten to the end and said, what that movie needed to make it better was some rock monsters. But at least I understand what Shatner thinks would have improved the movie. Okay, I did notice that the phaser fire in that scene was rather monochromatic and flat. No worse than what you see on the original show, but some twenty years later, that's probably not much of a defense. And while I didn't notice the BOP disruptors, thinking back on them, I suppose the motion was kind of choppy. But if those kinds of flaws are the extent of the problem, it hardly seems enough to factor into one's impression of the whole movie.
The difference between the state of the art today and the Trek effects of yesterday is twofold, I guess: the old effects never were state of the art for that time and age, and the current effects are "photorealistic" in the sense that they couldn't be any more true to life no matter how much the VFX tech evolved - that is, no more true than the faces of the actors or the seams on the sets. (Movie tech in general might change in the near future, establishing new standards of "photorealistic" overall, perhaps until the point is reached where movies are indiscernible from reality. But what fun is reality? Movies or whatever replaces them might instead choose to shoot way past the mark, or deliberately fall short, or whatever.) Yet photorealistic VFX can still be used to portray silly things, and most of Beyond is beyond silly. It will look dated soon enough, even if for slightly different reasons than TOS VFX. Out of the TFF visuals, I found the hand phaser action smooth enough to the eye, the general ship visuals acceptable, and the three torpedo actions unbearably clunky. When the hero ship dodges the green Klingon bolt, it's a key moment for the starship to be heroic and dashing in her own right, and I'd seriously hope for glorious angles and fantastic camera work there; it's mainly the stilted movement of the items in question that annoys me. When the Klingons attack the second time, it's not that crucial, but when Kirk commands a torp down the throat of God, again there should be something good to go with the concept. Timo Saloniemi
I think the FX in TFF were dreadful all round with only a couple of exceptions - the rear of the Enterprise 'moon' shot and the last shot of the Enterprise leaving the planet at the end of the film with the BoP behind it. The rest were absolutely terrible and comfortably the worst in the entire series.
Even as a kid, two of the shots of the Enterprise flying had bothered me, because it was obvious that the ship wasn't really moving, but rather a single frame of Enterprise being manipulated to create the illusion (like into the Galactic Barrier). So it felt extremely unnatural. In hindsight, compare to ships depicted as slow but graceful giants in TWOK or how the BOP sweeps under the Golden Gate Bridge in TVH. Even just a couple years later, one of my favorite flyby shots is Enterprise flying to Khitomer at high impulse in TUC. It's a simple shot but it really depicted motion and speed.
I tend to agree with what everybody else said, but I don't think TFF was the worst. As noted above, it did have some really great shots -- like the "moon" shot and leaving Sha Ka Ree. For me, the worst TFF shot was when the Enterprise was dodging the Klingon torpedo. That wasn't even TOS worthy; it was more like TAS flying a cutout of the ship across the screen. All that said, I still don't think it was the worst; Generations takes that title for me. The only redeeming effects in that movie were stock from the television show. Nothing new was good.
Totally agree with this, what an embarrassing scene that was, they just keep on coming for this film though; the terrible blue screen work with Kirk's fall, the aforementioned stop motion Klingon disrupter, the enterprise at warp which looked like it was still at impulse with a few ribbons hanging off it, the great barrier which just looked like a load of blue liquid in a glass of water shot at closeup, the deck 78 scene, all the 'god' scenes, just about every visual effect in the movie was utterly piss poor, and far worse than all of it's older predecessors. 100% disagree with this. I think the visuals in Generations were outstanding, and still hold up very well today, with the only fly in the ointment being the recycled footage. Are you seriously saying the visual FX on the Enterprise B launch, Nexus ribbon, the stunning shot of the Enterprise D approaching the observatory in sunlight, Saucer crash, planet destruction etc to name but a few are worse than TFF? I think the effects in Generations were better than First Contact and Insurrection and were as more or less as good as Nemesis.
Yep; that's what I'm saying. TFF's effects failed on a number levels, but still evoked some sense of realism, at least insofar as the ships were concerned (the ridiculous CG guns at the beginning aside), while Generations' failed at even that basic level. Almost everything looked only marginally better than you might see playing STO on a good computer -- except the stock footage, all of which brought a sense of scale, weight, and realism to the ship and looked really fantastic on the big screen.
I'm curious @Smellmet, who were you watching the film with for this shot to cause you embarrassment? If I were a boy watching a movie with my mum and there was a naughty scene that gave me a boner that might cause me to become embarrassed. Seeing a dodgy special effect in an episode of Star Trek is more likely to make me laugh than become embarrassed. I'm imagining a scenario like this in your house: Young Smellmet (watching an episode of Star Trek): I LOVE this show! Watch it with me mum! Smellmet's mum: Shame on you! That show has poor production values and an unrealistic philosophy on humanity!
After Treks 2-4 being of generally good quality -- if you had asked a non-Trek friend to go with you to see TFF -- YES, it could have been embarrassing.
There are three instances of stock footage that I can think of in all of Generations: The brief shot of the Enterprise cruising as Picard begins his captain's log prior to Stellar Cartography (and that's a pretty hideous shot, since it was rather crudely upscaled), one brief bit during the saucer separation and, of course, the Bird of Prey explosion.
Which brings me back to the effects for the great barrier and the God character in Final Frontier. I'm not saying I'd call them "photorealistic." But I wonder if people who complain about those effects just really wouldn't accept those concepts, no matter how they were visually portrayed. This is still the criticism that most baffles me. What else could they have shown?